July 12, 2011

Picture the political gerrymandering that could be done if it were feasible to redraw state lines!

Now, California is way too big. It's population is 37,253,956, according to the 2010 census. That's nearly 10 times the size of the entire United States at the time of the first census in 1790 (3,929,214). At the time of the founding, of course, there was much talk of the United States as a "large" republic. (See, e.g., Federalist #10.) The states were supposed to have an important role offsetting some of the problems of that largeness. How is that supposed to work today, especially in the absurdly overlarge California?

But redrawing the lines now? One look at Jeff Stone's South California map should tell you what chaos lies there.

105 comments:

Basically he sees LA as a giant "sucking mechanism"--a financial black hole populated by some of California's least productive members draining resources from it's most productive citizens. Point-in-fact, LA's current Mayor basically confirmed that characterization during the recent attempts by the San Fernando Valley bedroom communities of mostly middle-class professionals/businessmen to succeed from greater Los Angeles by publicly admitting that LA couldn't exist without their tax revenues..

I'm a fan of the concept, and appreciate the lines as he drew them, but it really is absurd.

NorCal people really are in a different state than SoCal, and we all know this and act like it anyhow.

So, there's definitely at least two and probably three or four different cultural/identity distinctions in California that could be separated into different states, that fall along geographic lines.

But this isn't one of them. Despite the political difference, there's just no way to split off LA county from any understanding of SoCal. There's not really even any noticeable city transitions between LA and the other counties. One city begins across the block on a busy street from where one ends. The only difference is the change in street sign color.

That being said, I'd heartily support a SoCal State that goes from San Diego to San Luis Obispo County. That would give almost the exact same range of cultural distinctions in about 1/3 the space. I'll leave the Central Valley and Jefferson to sort our their own dealings with the Bay Area.

"South California would take nearly a third of the population away from California, making the Golden State the second-largest state after Texas"

Um, i believe Alaska is the largest, then Texas. California is third, followed by Montana. Don't know whether this split would put South California (which is too close to South Carolina) in front of or behind Montana. Journalists would do well to drop journalism courses and take actual courses and learn something.

Right now, Californians have, by far, the absolute least proportionate representation in the Senate, and with both of our present Senators being Bay Area folks, it's not entirely unseemly to suggest we get a bit more voices. SoCal interests and issues are quite distinct from NoCal, so having a voice in the Senate seems understandable. After all, on the East Coast something like 10 Senators or more represent the same amount of geography.

Right now, Californians have, by far, the absolute least proportionate representation in the Senate, and with both of our present Senators being Bay Area folks, it's not entirely unseemly to suggest we get a bit more voices. SoCal interests and issues are quite distinct from NoCal, so having a voice in the Senate seems understandable. After all, on the East Coast something like 10 Senators or more represent the same amount of geography.

It's been over 50 years since the US added a new state, the longest time in its history. That's not good because the US needs to expand, if it doesn't it will lose its vigor and become just another stale, former great power.

Dividing up a current state is not the solution. New land with more people is needed to compete with China and India. Puerto Rico might be an option, but they all need to learn English first and that might take some time. I suggest absorbing, peacefully, some of the Canadian Provinces, perhaps Nova Scotia and New Brunswick first with an option on New Foundland and P.E. Island. The next priority should be British Columbia, that way you could drive to Alaska without leaving the country.

This all, by the way, makes increasing sense. Even when I was young in the 1970s, SoCal was still a rather rural place. I grew up around a lot of orange groves, and my parents both grew up on farms, in farming communities in what is now a very concretized eastern LA county. Orange groves spread as far as the eye could see. My grandfather, in Baldwin Park, CA was at one time was one of the largest producers of tomatoes for Hunt's, as well as a major producer of avocadoes and other crops.

The second half of the 20th century changed everything. SoCal became urbanized, in a way that other, eastern states, did in the 1800s, back when new state were being created for such reason.

Um, i believe Alaska is the largest, then Texas. California is third, followed by Montana. Don't know whether this split would put South California (which is too close to South Carolina) in front of or behind Montana. Journalists would do well to drop journalism courses and take actual courses and learn something.

Maybe you should take a remedial reading course. They are speaking in terms of population, not land mass.

I pretty much agree w. Paddy-O socioculturally-wise, but the Central Valley from Bakersfield north to Fresno is neither especially coastal southern nor coastal northern--but especially "neither."l And then the fourth AND FIFTH regions would be the hi-desert SW and the mountainous western strip which, even at its southern reaches, is pretty much like NORCAL culturally-wise.. Tho YMMV..

If only it was so. The State of California should be drawn into three. Two rational and conservative states on the north and the south and leaving the irrationality and moonbattery on the coasts and in the middle.

I'm willing to give up Humboldt County and the rest of the coastal counties and cut off the state below Yuba City in exchange for our freedom.

He is correct. The inland and rural areas have nothing in common with the liberal enclaves. NOTHING whatsoever.

I'd even be willing to pay a tax to visit the People's Republic of California (moon bat central), where my family would end up living, if we could be free.

* Southern, including Los Angeles;* Central Valley, which incorporates all that farmland (Fresno could be the capital);* Mid-North, incorporates the Silicon Valley, with San Francisco as the capital;* North - Marin County all the way to the border of Oregon

Another approach would be to take every county and just make it a state instead. That's sort of what the Northeast looks like (Vermont, New Hampshire, etc).

Of course, and that's why there's no major protests about it all. But, even though it's not directly representative, there should be some level of restraint in how many people the Senators of a single state purport to serve.

That two Senators from Wyoming have as much power as two Senators from North Carolina makes sense. That two Senators from California represent the same amount of territory, and close to the number of people, as much of the East up to New York is pushing the limits of sense.

California is very late to the demographics game and urban expansion. If California had not experienced a gold rush and became a state extremely early in its natural population development, it almost certainly would have eventually been 2 or 3 different states.

It's not going to happen, but it's not absurd to think about California really, logically, being several states.

If you want your dreams to be realized, Sheepman, you'd better pray for Quebec's independence movement. If Quebec ever did gain independence, the Maritime provinces--financial basket-cases all--would immediately petition the US for admission to suck on federal subsidies and the western provinces--Manitoba, Alberta and Saskatchewan--would all petition for admission as they're all Texans/midwesterners in attitude anyway. B.C. would, of course want to form a separate nation with western Washington, western Oregon, and Northern CA..

@Pianoman: As a former resident of Kings County, I object to Fresno being the capital of anything but suck. =)

People have kicked this idea around in the Central Valley for years - the struggle for funding to modernize Highway 198 (between I-5 and 99) was dragged out for years because highway funds went so disproportionately north and south. 'Course, that's where the population lives, so I'm not sure there's an easy way around it. It would be nice to have a state legislature that's not entirely monopolized by one party, however.

The Senate, as well as the electoral college, was intended not to represent population, but geographical units, and the package of interests that come from that. So, while South Dakota or Wyoming don't have the people of even one major city on the east or West Coast, they have distinct voices about their particular priorities which should be respected. Thirteen million people in one city region are a lot of people, but they all share the interest of that one city region, just like 13,000 people in Wyoming share the interests of their particular region.

The trouble with CA is that the Senators of our State aren't only burdened with extremely stretched population representation, they also represent a massive amount of geographic interests, some of which are in open conflict. Every state has this, such as New York with its city and upstate. But California having six or seven or more highly distinct parcels of interests stretches too far even the intentions and purposes of the Senate.

First, they should call the new state Alta California. It's what Americans originally called the area and it sings - a lot better than South CA.

Second, this idea has been floated since I was a kid, largely because of the size and diversity if the state and its population. Now, it makes a bit more sense.

Original Mike said...

Wouldn't South California be the 58th state?

61st.

Pianoman said...

California could easily be divided into four separate states:

* Southern, including Los Angeles;* Central Valley, which incorporates all that farmland (Fresno could be the capital);* Mid-North, incorporates the Silicon Valley, with San Francisco as the capital;* North - Marin County all the way to the border of Oregon

There's talking of breaking TX into 5 states, due to both size and population.

That's an additional 7 states.

Hmmmm...

I wonder if Dr Evil has cornered the market on state flag manufacturers.

Synova said...

There's that nice straight line almost across the middle, why not there?

Maybe you should take a remedial reading course. They are speaking in terms of population, not land mass.

If they meant to refer to population (which they obviously did), the correction terminology would have been "most populous state." Using the word "largest" literally indicates the state's size, not population. Perhaps vocabulary courses are in order?

If this matter were to be taken seriously, and given the inevitable power struggles over representation in the House and Senate, can we please just all agree that any Democrats that choose to remain in Southern CA be counted as 3/5th a person?

If you want your dreams to be realized, Sheepman, you'd better pray for Quebec's independence movement.An independent Quebec is not an implausible scenario and it would create ideal conditions for the Maritime Provinces joining the US on terms beneficial to the US. The Western provinces would be more advantageous with their oil reserves, so they would have more bargaining power. Perhaps we could promise to build a high speed rail there and then renege once they join?

Since I think that the Northern California (State of Jefferson) should extend no further south than Yuba City, I would suggest that it be somewhat in the middle and still in the valley area.

I would think that Oroville, an historical gold mining town would be centrally located. I would hesitate to put the capitol in a college town like Chico for fear of just creating another Bezerkly north. Oroville is the county seat for Butte County.

With the exception of the extreme coastal areas and the hippie enclaves of Humbolt County, the area is very rural and generally moderate to conservative leaning.

At one point, about 12 years ago, the counties in the north eastern part of the state started the process of trying to secede into Nevada. Unfortunately, we didn't get anywhere with that movement. But it made sense. We have much more in common with Nevada and eastern Oregon than the rest of California.

The law that brought the Republic of Texas into the USA allows us to break into up to 5 states.

It has been (semi-seriously) said that this is unconstitutional, and would render the incorporation of Texas into the Union null and void, as it has no severability clause. Texas Monthly had a great cover story on the newly reconstituted Republic - becoming a member of OPEC, etc.

I took a marketing course back in the 80s that divided the US into several different marketing regions. I don't remember all of them but I remember some. The west coast was divided into Ecutopia and Southern California. There was also the Bread Basket (rural Midwest), Rustbelt, Dixie, Caribbean Rim (south Florida and Puerto Rico), Urbania (East coast strip from DC to Boston), and New England. The idea was that each region required a different strategy to appeal to the most customers.

California is basically like a sineater state. For the last fifty years we've been absorbing liberals from all the many states, which has transformed our lovely, Western, America loving conservative state, that helped give this nation Ronald Reagan, into the liberal enclave that now provides Boxer and Pelosi.

Speaking of "sineaters," Paddy O, Rod Serling's "Night Gallery" tv series had a GREAT show about one back in 1972 titled: "The Sins of the Fathers" taking place in 19th Cent Wales. It takes place during a famine and a young guy has to be the sineater at a wake--REALLY creepy.

Actually, I'd be tempted to make it three states, joining the parts north of San Francisco (starting around Redding) with Southern Oregon to give them the State of Jefferson they've been hankerin' for.

I propose we take Baja from the Mexicans and combine it with San Diego for a new state.

My history is fuzzy here, but I believe this was discussed seriously after one of the Spanish American wars. The problem today is that Tijuana would be included. Also, you'd have an even bigger problem with illegal aliens crossing the Gulf of California. So I vote no on this.

Aside from the fact that no Democrat would ever win the presidency, the next best part is that NorCal would have no claim on the Colorado River since SoCal would be the only state bordering it. LA would have to buy its water from SoCal - goodbye LA!

XWL has a plan for cutting California up into six states which is kind of nice.

I think anybody should be able to split off from a state, but not into a new state, into a territory. they can apply for admission after the fact. I also think bankrupt states should revert to territories.

My six state scheme still looks pretty good, and does a better job than the South California proposal at respecting historic and current geographic and demographic realities.

The South California plan basically combines my states of Muir and Reagan into one big red (state) machine.

The way to sell this plan to the leftover part of the state would be to accept more than their fair share of the debt. South California should take 65% of current debt, even though it represents only 35% of the population. That sort of instant debt relief might be attractive to the political types in Sacramento. Liberal voters in CA would just see the short term gain, while voters in SCA would understand that with better governance, they would wipe out that debt in less than a decade once freed from the Bay Area and Los Angeles. A win-win for both sides, though long term a big win for South California, and a continued spiral into crapitude for the leftovers.

Maybe it's time to blow up all the state boundaries, and then let each county across the nation negotiate to partner with other contiguous counties in whichever way they see fit within a few parameters. Place a lower limit of 40 states and an upper limit of 100. Also place upper and lower limits on population, with a minimum of 2 million, and a maximum of 15. Do this every 40 years or so, would be chaotic, but fun.

As far as Alaska and Hawaii go, they'd be exempt, both are two far away to add to other counties, and too small in population to split into more states.

I propose we take Baja from the Mexicans and combine it with San Diego for a new state.

My history is fuzzy here, but I believe this was discussed seriously after one of the Spanish American wars. The problem today is that Tijuana would be included. Also, you'd have an even bigger problem with illegal aliens crossing the Gulf of California. So I vote no on this.

The original concept of the Gadsden Purchase (1854, after the Mexican War) was to buy the northern tier of states from Mexico (Chihuahua, Sonora, Nuevo Leon, etc.) for routes for a transcontinental railroad. Not sure if Baja was in the mix, though.

DBQ said...I would think that Oroville, an historical gold mining town would be centrally located. I would hesitate to put the capitol in a college town like Chico for fear of just creating another Bezerkly north. Oroville is the county seat for Butte County.

FWIW, I was born in Chico, because Oroville, where our house was didn't have a hospital in 1950...

12/11 11:40 AM

Paddy O said... California is basically like a sineater state. For the last fifty years we've been absorbing liberals from all the many states, which has transformed our lovely, Western, America loving conservative state

I assume that if you were raised in California, (at least before the schools imploded) that you were exposed to Turner's "Frontier Thesis".

In short, it postulates that the folks who didn't fit in in England moved to Virginia, the ones that didnt fit in there moved on to Kentucky, and so forth and so on till they got to California. The result is that California was left with population set 5 SD's to the right on a scale of individualism...

Maybe it's time to blow up all the state boundaries, and then let each county across the nation negotiate to partner with other contiguous counties in whichever way they see fit within a few parameters.

I like that, though what if we also made rejoining the rest of the US optional. I've said here before that if you roughtly draw a line vertically about the east border of Colorado all the way up into Canada, you end up with a more heterogenious country that what we have now. The plains states would choose which way to go. My guess, they'd go with the new nation of Western America. (Though we arguably should just call it The United States and the easter left over would just be called Shithole.

"The result is that California was left with population set 5 SD's to the right on a scale of individualism..."

I think this is true. The trouble is that once California is not longer a frontier (i.e. the 2nd half of the 20th century), people who were not of frontier stock began to populate the urban areas. So many that over the last 20 years, the state has changed identity.

California has become collectivist rather than individualist.

There's a high distinction between old timer Californians and those who have come to the state from other places in the last 20-30 years.

Add to this the fact there's no where else West to go. What do those with frontier instincts do now?

I don't see how this can be done: water rights. Western states jealously guard their water against the depredations of their neighbors. There's no way to split off LA from the Owens Valley. The state could be split along watersheds: the Kern, Kaweah, Owens, maybe Kings going to SoCal, others go to NorCal.

When water rights come into conflict, Westerners reach for their guns. The law works too slow to safeguard your water supply. All the water agreements would have to be worked out in great detail before the split, but the parties would never agree, since they are dealing with sovereign entities not yet born, and the Federal Congress is spectacularly incompetent at brokering a deal.

This split up proposal is a recipe for armed conflict. The Great California Water War the history books would call it.

California is indivisible, until the foundering of the Republic of the United States.

I agree with the comments made by others that the map at the linked article clearly suggests an East California - West California divide, rather than a North-South divide, even though it is perhaps skewed by the fact that much of northern California is not shown on the map. Viewing it from an East-West perspective would seem to lessen the strength of an argument for excessive gerrymandering, and if it is politically coherent, then perhaps it makes sense, after all.

A case of poor framing, at a minimum. Then again, that can't be - Democrats insist that Republicans are masters of political framing, don't they?

DBQ, as an aside, I had relatives whose nut orchard is under Lake Oroville. It was like a scene out of China Town... The Sheriff served condemnation orders, moving vans, bulldozed house... I understand guns were drawn at other evictions.

For you Easterners, Chinatown (the Movie) has more than a grain of truth regarding the LA Water wars.

Actually, as silly as this may seem, I think there may be something to this.

As things stand now, the country has two diverging cultures, that can easily be identified geographically, "blue" and "red." In a few case, you actually have "blue states"; but in most of the country, you have "blue counties" that have enough votes to tip the balance, in their states, and then in various way, in policy outcomes. (See this map, if it pops up: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/interactives/campaign08/election/uscounties.html)

Except that, the blue counties, while having a lot of votes, don't have enough money on their own. And they aren't content to impose their preferred policies only on themselves.

At some point--perhaps if or when the fiscal train cracks up spectacularly as it may--then it would make all the sense in the world for the red counties to secede from the blue counties. "Fine, you like this brave new world? You pay for it, without any more help from us."

I don't see it happening unless there were a real crisis--and the U.S. government actually going bankrupt, something that is far more likely than folks realize--could be it.

DBQ, as an aside, I had relatives whose nut orchard is under Lake Oroville. It was like a scene out of China Town... The Sheriff served condemnation orders, moving vans, bulldozed house... I understand guns were drawn at other evictions.

I remember those days. It was pretty ugly. Long time family homestead were taken by eminent domain

Also one of my favorite swimming/partying holes Nelson Bar is now under hundreds of feet of water. Also some pretty nice places to dive and flush out gold nuggets.

Ah....but at least the San Francisco assholes can sit on their redwood decks, water their gardens with our water and dictate how WE should live our lives.

We didn't go often. We left Oroville in 1955. Both Grandmothers lived there another 15+ years. We used to visit and go to the Bar, once or twice each summer.

Different story about different times. Pop worked for the WP (Western Pacific RR). Mom used to take me down to the Sacramento train station, show her pass, turn me over to a conductor or Pullman Porter (I was 5-10 y/o) and I would ride free and alone up to Oroville on the California Zephyr where a Grandmother would walk over to the train station, meet me and get a report from the Porter about whether I had misbehaved.

You'd give up being the center of California (bellybutton, or a$$hole) to be the Capital of SoCal?

I suggest Barstow, or maybe Main Post, Ft Irwin. If I wanted to control spending in my new state, I'd want my new capital to be some hell-hole that nobody wants to visit for more than 2 weeks each winter. That's the problem with California versus Texas. The Texans dont meet much to spend other people's money...

PS: That's what went wrong with the US. Pre-air conditioning and DDT, Washington DC used to be a hardship tour in the summer. The Brit Diplomatic service prescribed Pith Helmets / Shorts (old white men in Shorts) as part of the summer duty uniform. Think about all the money we could save if there were no AC in Washington this summer...

The SoCalistas stole your water fair and square. You haven't got anything to complain about. Heck, they even paid for the aqueducts, flood control, everything. You live in the rich land of California that your far-sighted, hard-working, determined fathers built for you from a desert. You can't pay them back, but you could pay them forward. Instead, you're like a bunch of lay-about trust funders, living on past glories, good for nothing, lost in your follies, and ignoring the days of reckoning soon upon you.

You mean the people without water won the ballot vote and made everybody pay to ship the water from up North, down South? Did they pay for the water? no, they condemned the ranches and Orchards and built their Dam, then took the water.

Sheepman suggests: absorbing, peacefully, some of the Canadian Provinces, perhaps Nova Scotia and New Brunswick first with an option on New Foundland and P.E. Island. The next priority should be British Columbia, that way you could drive to Alaska without leaving the country.

There has for some time actually been a Canadian movement supporting absorption of Canadian provinces into the United States: http://www.unitednorthamerica.org/index.htm

Like I said, they stole it fair and square. If you don't defend your water, and refuse to sell at any price; and you can't use it because you're poor small-holding farmers with a short growing season, so as there's not enough of you to use all you've got ..., well all that unclaimed and unused and undefended water is going to sucked into aqueducts built by grim-faced steely-eyed civil engineers who carry firearms on their hips. Use it, or lose it.

Every single one of the Owens valley farmers sold out to LADWP and thought they were getting a smoking deal. They were pissed after the fact because if they had known it was LADWP, they would of held out for even more. Mulholland is the archetype of shrewd.

There has for some time actually been a Canadian movement supporting absorption of Canadian provinces into the United States: http://www.unitednorthamerica.org/index.htm

Thanks for the link!

Really like the tree that has grown in the shape of a United North America. That's a positive growth to get excited about. All this talk here of dividing up present US states is so negative, so Un-American. Cutting a pie in smaller pieces doesn't make it any bigger!

I'm all in favor of splitting California into three states; I want the dividing line between the northern section ("Alta California") and the rest to be the American River. I live just NORTH of the American River, so I'd be rid of both LA and SF.